Man. That guy must be related to Antonio Cromartie and Travis Henry. Ridiculous.

mrveggieman

05-22-2012, 10:12 AM

I heard this story before. The guy is clearly an idiot but what the women who lay up with him need to be slapped as well.

Star_Cards

05-22-2012, 10:15 AM

I saw this yesterday. Absolutely crazy to think about having 30 kids with 11 women. Definitely not a smart man. As for the women, what in the heck were they thinking going back for seconds and thirds with this guy? Baffling!!!

angel0430

05-22-2012, 10:26 AM

And now he wants a break. He should be put in jail for not paying child support.

JustAlex

05-22-2012, 10:27 AM

The U.S is the way it is because corporations run the government and the financial sector is allowed to do whatever it pleases with absolutely no consequences.

It's NOT because of idiots like the one in the article...

The U.S will one day become nothing more than "just another country" because it decided to spend more money then EVERY NATION IN THE WORLD on "defense" and policing the world instead of investing in Education, infrastructure, and more production.

The U.S has no one to blame but itself.......many decades from now history books will show the U.S as the perfect example of how badly an unregulated capitalist system with the greatest fortune in the world can screw up so badly in such a short amount of time.

shrewsbury

05-22-2012, 10:27 AM

he should be in jail, because there is no way he can afford to clothe and feed that many kids

AUTaxMan

05-22-2012, 10:39 AM

I saw this yesterday. Absolutely crazy to think about having 30 kids with 11 women. Definitely not a smart man. As for the women, what in the heck were they thinking going back for seconds and thirds with this guy? Baffling!!!

Why do they care? The government checks keep rolling in.

BGT Masters

05-22-2012, 04:24 PM

Why do they care? The government checks keep rolling in.

How true it is. One of my major pet peeves is people who feed of the system. I have a friend who gets food stamps which is fine, until I found out his girlfriend got breast implants while they were on welfare. I sure wish I could get a free $400 a month for food while I $500 a month for a car I shouldn't own. Another former friend, got hooked up with some girl who is on SI and refuses to work (she's not disabled) they had a baby a few months later (go figure), and now he refuses to work and is trying every route to sue someone because he's sick, injured in every way imaginable and find someway to claim he's disabled now. He goes to the ER and hospital all the time and pays for none of it. It really makes me sick.

My county is one of the poorer areas in NY and its full of people who treat having children like pay checks and would rather get government checks than work and earn a living. I could go on and on. I know three couples who have 4 children each, and each one of them has kids that have teeth rotting out of their mouth and they're all 3-10 years old. Instead of taking care of their kids they go out and spend their income tax on new cars, and other junk they really don't need instead of fixing their kids teeth.

Sorry for the rant but I can't rant around where I live because half of the people I am around would get offended. :frusty: Of course I am a firm believer if you can't afford to have kids, DON'T HAVE THEM, until you are ready. If something goes wrong and you lose your job and you need help feeding your family I'm fine for a little help btw. It just seems we've went from a country who was proud of a hard days work, and proud of the work we did, to people who expect handouts and would rather get carried through life by the system.

JustAlex

05-22-2012, 05:05 PM

How true it is. One of my major pet peeves is people who feed of the system. I have a friend who gets food stamps which is fine, until I found out his girlfriend got breast implants while they were on welfare. Wait!

How is this unfair?

The food stamps are going to the guy, not the girl!

Also, they're NOT married if you said it's her "girlfriend", so "they" are not getting food stamps together!

JustAlex

05-22-2012, 05:06 PM

Another former friend, got hooked up with some girl who is on SI and refuses to work (she's not disabled) they had a baby a few months later (go figure), and now he refuses to work and is trying every route to sue someone because he's sick, injured in every way imaginable and find someway to claim he's disabled now. He goes to the ER and hospital all the time and pays for none of it. It really makes me sick.

So, people shouldn't have a baby?

BTW, maybe it was an "accident" and they didn't want to abort it, did you think of that?

Also, if he goes to the hospital and doesn't pay, that's probably because medical bills are so expensive.

In fact, medical bills is the #1 reason why people declare bankruptcy in the U.S.

My county is one of the poorer areas in NY and its full of people who treat having children like pay checks and would rather get government checks than work and earn a living.

How do you know that?

Don't you think people want more out of their lives than a very low welfare check?

Do you think they're "getting paid" while they have kids to feed?

NO, they're struggling and barely getting by, they're probably very poor and need help.....are we supposed to let them all die?

Of course I am a firm believer if you can't afford to have kids, DON'T HAVE THEM, until you are ready.

I agree as well.

However, you seem to forget that "having kids" is many times an accident and not on purpose.

Trust me, I've seen it in my own family as my sister got pregnant when she was only 17 years old....do you think she wanted to get pregnant while still in high school?

Then, her boyfriend immediately refused to help and she was on her own.

Can you imagine a single mother taking care of a baby while still being in high school?

And this happens everyday in America, they need help, and I would think that we live in a society that SHOULD help them.

Of course, there should be more education to PREVENT this from happening as well.

This is why we should also be in favor for more contraceptives and making sure that it's easily affordable and available.

It's not the end of the world to give teenagers condoms....In fact I'm all for it.

Let them know that there are REAL consequences to having sex, however if they do decide to have sex, make sure you're protected from unwanted pregnancies that later become a burden to tax payers.

It just seems we've went from a country who was proud of a hard days work, and proud of the work we did, to people who expect handouts and would rather get carried through life by the system.
I have no idea how anyone can believe that a "handout" is "getting through life".

These "handouts" are very little money, in fact they're barely able to get by on a daily basis with food and necessities.

Most of these people are by no means "living it up".

Final note: I'm not picking on you and I respect your opinions, but it just seems like maybe you should really think about things such as welfare money and other entitlement programs a little more carefully.

YES, there are people who abuse the system....YES, there are those that deliberately don't care and just want free money.

But I truly believe that the majority of them are not like that and there is a real need for help for the less fortunate.

We need more education and better jobs to sufficiently help everyone....you would think that the world's "Wealthiest, most powerful nation" shouldn't have these problems....and yet it does.

AUTaxMan

05-22-2012, 05:28 PM

You can walk into Walmart and get a contraception prescription filled for about $9 a month without health insurance. I would say that makes it both affordable and widely available.

JustAlex

05-22-2012, 05:51 PM

You can walk into Walmart and get a contraception prescription filled for about $9 a month without health insurance. I would say that makes it both affordable and widely available.

Yes, and that's why I argued in the other thread about the GOP and their war on women on making contraception easily available and affordable.

They're trying to make it tough to get, because they don't like people having sex and god forbid TEENS having sex, right?

It happens, and there's nothing you can do to stop it, in fact, the more you tell teens to NOT have sex, the more they're going to want to have sex.

I remember when I was in high school there was a group giving free condoms at my school, they used to come once every year.

However, by my Junior year, they weren't there anymore.

I later found out that a group of parents were OUTRAGED that their kids were getting condoms at school.

I thought this was utter nonsense, the last thing you want is for your kid to get an STD or an unwanted pregnancy.

If I were a father and I had a teenage son, I would give him a condom, and I would explain all the risks there are with sex.

However, if he can't control his desires, please have safe sex.

shrewsbury

05-22-2012, 05:56 PM

don't do the act if you can't pay for it

or for us older people

don't do the crime if you can't pay the time (don't do it)

and justalex,

how many close friends do you know on welfare and are taking advantage of it? how many public housing units have you been in?

i can tell you i have been in more than any social worker or goverment agency. people are living a decent life, a life that allows them to smoke, drink, have a flat screen tv, internet access, xbox, plenty of food, and not a care in the world. whole families living like this is not unusual. this is what i have an issue with not the real disabled, which most of them that can function even a little actually work, i have customers who are mentally retarded and make it into the office each month, and on time, to pay their bill, they might even have to bring change, but they are great people. some work at the local murray ridge, stuffing envelopes (which by the way we use them to do our bills), live in goverment housing, and try their best, they could have my tax dollar all day long.

or even couples or single parents who need a hand, i have been there, both as a child and a young adult, it helped me to get where i am at over 20 years later, with a nice house, and a great job and married with my wife having a great job, it has been hard and long, but we're here now and i am sure anyone could do the same, we are not special or lucky.

but i would bet (which by the way i don't gamble) that no less than 25-35% of people on assistance are not even trying to do anything to get off of it. that's a lot of people, and a lot of money that could be going to help those who really need it

BGT Masters

05-22-2012, 05:58 PM

Wait!

How is this unfair?

The food stamps are going to the guy, not the girl!

Also, they're NOT married if you said it's her "girlfriend", so "they" are not getting food stamps together!

Pardon me, they ARE married. And the income tax they got back went for the boob job. They are now splitting up, and he kept both of the kids even though one is not his, until they found out she had to pay child support in order for him to continue to get welfare.

Needless to say, she is going to take her kid back so she doesn't have to pay child support and they both can get welfare. What a crock. Again this is the guy who pays $500 a month for a car. If you can afford a boob job, and a $500 a month car payment, you don't need welfare.

AUTaxMan

05-22-2012, 06:01 PM

Yes, and that's why I argued in the other thread about the GOP and their war on women on making contraception easily available and affordable.

They're trying to make it tough to get, because they don't like people having sex and god forbid TEENS having sex, right?

I am confused. I have not read a single thing saying that Republicans want Walmart to stop selling contraception.

shrewsbury

05-22-2012, 06:03 PM

[QUOTE] If you can afford a boob job, and a $500 a month car payment, you don't need welfare.[QUOTE]

:love0030: (in honor of veggieman)

JustAlex

05-22-2012, 06:10 PM

how many close friends do you know on welfare and are taking advantage of it? how many public housing units have you been in?
I don't have any friends that are on welfare, although, many of them at one point or another have recieved unemployment benefits and food stamps.

In fact, I myself have received unemployment, and there is NO WAY I could make a living with the very little amount they were giving me.

Furthermore, I don't think I've been to many public housing units, but I've NEVER lived in the suburbs either.

All my life, I have lived in a lower middle class area (Please note that I am only 24 years old).

i can tell you i have been in more than any social worker or goverment agency. people are living a decent life, a life that allows them to smoke, drink, have a flat screen tv, internet access, xbox, plenty of food, and not a care in the world. whole families living like this is not unusual. this is what i have an issue with not the real disabled, which most of them that can function even a little actually work, i have customers who are mentally retarded and make it into the office each month, and on time, to pay their bill, they might even have to bring change, but they are great people. some work at the local murray ridge, stuffing envelopes (which by the way we use them to do our bills), live in goverment housing, and try their best, they could have my tax dollar all day long.

OK, so living in a crappy environment and not being able to control your income is decent life?

Internet, flat screen TVs/game consoles, other electronics are very affordable nowadays don't make it seem like they are luxury items.

Again, I never said there aren't people that don't abuse the system.

YES, those people exists, but that doesn't mean that the majority are doing that.

BGT Masters

05-22-2012, 06:11 PM

So, people shouldn't have a baby?

BTW, maybe it was an "accident" and they didn't want to abort it, did you think of that?

Also, if he goes to the hospital and doesn't pay, that's probably because medical bills are so expensive.

In fact, medical bills is the #1 reason why people declare bankruptcy in the U.S.

Don't you think people want more out of their lives than a very low welfare check?

Do you think they're "getting paid" while they have kids to feed?

NO, they're struggling and barely getting by, they're probably very poor and need help.....are we supposed to let them all die?

I agree as well.

However, you seem to forget that "having kids" is many times an accident and not on purpose.

Trust me, I've seen it in my own family as my sister got pregnant when she was only 17 years old....do you think she wanted to get pregnant while still in high school?

Then, her boyfriend immediately refused to help and she was on her own.

Can you imagine a single mother taking care of a baby while still being in high school?

And this happens everyday in America, they need help, and I would think that we live in a society that SHOULD help them.

Of course, there should be more education to PREVENT this from happening as well.

This is why we should also be in favor for more contraceptives and making sure that it's easily affordable and available.

It's not the end of the world to give teenagers condoms....In fact I'm all for it.

Let them know that there are REAL consequences to having sex, however if they do decide to have sex, make sure you're protected from unwanted pregnancies that later become a burden to tax payers.

I have no idea how anyone can believe that a "handout" is "getting through life".

These "handouts" are very little money, in fact they're barely able to get by on a daily basis with food and necessities.

Most of these people are by no means "living it up".

Final note: I'm not picking on you and I respect your opinions, but it just seems like maybe you should really think about things such as welfare money and other entitlement programs a little more carefully.

YES, there are people who abuse the system....YES, there are those that deliberately don't care and just want free money.

But I truly believe that the majority of them are not like that and there is a real need for help for the less fortunate.

We need more education and better jobs to sufficiently help everyone....you would think that the world's "Wealthiest, most powerful nation" shouldn't have these problems....and yet it does.

Since when is having a kid an accident? I remember being 17, and I didn't go around having unprotected sex, why? Two main reasons STDs and getting a girl pregnant. Its called being responsible. I personally believe if you're poor and you can't afford to feed another mouth you should be on birth control and using condoms/protection. You know what happened if I didn't have protection, I didn't have sex.........."GASP!!!!!" Who would of thought.

And again I live in a poor area where the cost of living is very low. Where people can and do live off from nothing but welfare. And you know what I see a lot in my area, those same 17 year olds having a baby and who are on welfare, when they are 18 guess what, another kid, a year later at 19 another one. Unfortunately there is no cure for stupidity. I'm not talking about someone who is on the system for a little while. I'm talking about lifers, and in my area there are a lot of them.

BGT Masters

05-22-2012, 06:16 PM

I don't have any friends that are on welfare, although, many of them at one point or another have recieved unemployment benefits and food stamps.

In fact, I myself have received unemployment, and there is NO WAY I could make a living with the very little amount they were giving me.

Furthermore, I don't think I've been to many public housing units, but I've NEVER lived in the suburbs either.

All my life, I have lived in a lower middle class area (Please note that I am only 24 years old).

OK, so living in a crappy environment and not being able to control your income is decent life?

Internet, flat screen TVs/game consoles, other electronics are very affordable nowadays don't make it seem like they are luxury items.

Again, I never said there aren't people that don't abuse the system.

YES, those people exists, but that doesn't mean that the majority are doing that.

I don't think we're referring to people who have received any kid of benefit. I was on unemployment when I got laid off many years ago. We're talking about people who ABUSE the system. In some areas you can live well off from abusing the system. I see people all the time living better than me who are on the system. I am just saying in my area is very possible and it happens a lot.

As I read someone else post as well, don't get me started on people that smoke several packs a day and drink beer like its water who are also on the system. I've never smoked so not exactly familiar with how much it costs, but I'm sure I could feed a family on 1-2 packs a day. We're not talking about fine dining but good meals none the less.

JustAlex

05-22-2012, 06:35 PM

Since when is having a kid an accident? I remember being 17, and I didn't go around having unprotected sex, why? Two main reasons STDs and getting a girl pregnant. Its called being responsible. I personally believe if you're poor and you can't afford to feed another mouth you should be on birth control and using condoms/protection. You know what happened if I didn't have protection, I didn't have sex.........."GASP!!!!!" Who would of thought.

It may surprise you to know that HALF of the pregnancies in the U.S are either by accident or completely unplanned:

http://www.ehow.com/about_4611925_unplanned-pregnancy-statistics.html

Look at this number: 468,988 babies are born to teenage mothers each year

Source: http://www.americanpregnancy.org/main/statistics.html

DO you think all of that was "planned"???

LOL, OK, sure...

You believe every teenager out there is "responsible" or that they are simply having sex to get pregnant so they can go on welfare.

Why do you think many people act SURPRISED when they get pregnant, they're surprised because they weren't planning to get pregnant.

Sometimes it just happens.

AUTaxMan

05-22-2012, 06:37 PM

It may surprise you to know that HALF of the pregnancies in the U.S are either by accident or completely unplanned:

http://www.ehow.com/about_4611925_unplanned-pregnancy-statistics.html

Look at this number: 468,988 babies are born to teenage mothers each year

Source: http://www.americanpregnancy.org/main/statistics.html

DO you think all of that was "planned"???

LOL, OK, sure...

You believe every teenager out there is "responsible" or that they are simply having sex to get pregnant so they can go on welfare.

YES, having a kid is sometimes an accident, in fact I would argue that MOST of the time it's an accident.

Why do you think many people act SURPRISED when they get pregnant, they're surprised because they weren't planning to get pregnant.

Sometimes it just happens.

You are playing semantics. BGT clearly means that the act of sex is not an accident, and therefore a resulting pregnancy from a willful act cannot be considered an accident.

shrewsbury

05-22-2012, 06:50 PM

being a father of three daughters i can tell you, teenage sex is something that is just flat out mind blowing.

we live in a very small town and yet their were still atleast a dozen HS girls pregnant while my girls were in high school, their graduating class was around 70 people.

i am unsure how anyone can curb it besides keeping a tight eye on your kids, even then things can happen, we some how made it through like many others do.

i would guess that the real number of first time participants that got pregnant is very, very low. someone having sex on a frequent basis are at more risk whether we give anyone contraceptives or not.

the issue is someone needs to be responsible and some how needs to be able to get a job and support their own actions, at some point.

JustAlex

05-22-2012, 06:54 PM

You are playing semantics. BGT clearly means that the act of sex is not an accident, and therefore a resulting pregnancy from a willful act cannot be considered an accident.

Well duh...

There's nobody that would claim that the act of sex is an accident.... but you're not going to impregnate a girl every time you have sex.

Thus when it does happen, more than likely it's unplanned.

"an accident" is simply the terminology used for an unplanned pregnancy.

Sorry if it sounds "bad" but that's the way it is.

And HALF of pregnancies are just that.....ACCIDENTS!

hawk2618

05-22-2012, 07:09 PM

I take it your friend isn't disabled and has no children correct??? If thats the case....
I have a HUGE problem with that.People would rather smudge their earnings just so they're under the gun to get these benefits rather than man up or even woman up for that matter and make money from actually DOING work.I started making a so-called living at 11 yrs old delivering newspapers.Although still at home obviously,it got me in the mindset of how to make money by manual labor.To be honest... I would be absolutely ashamed to be on welfare or even getting foodstamps.As long as there's handouts from the government....the shameless will always accept!
~~Dave C.

GrimUSMC

05-22-2012, 07:15 PM

Well duh...

There's nobody that would claim that the act of sex is an accident.... but you're not going to impregnate a girl every time you have sex.

Thus when it does happen, more than likely it's unplanned.

"an accident" is simply the terminology used for an unplanned pregnancy.

Sorry if it sounds "bad" but that's the way it is.

And HALF of pregnancies are just that.....ACCIDENTS!

Irresponsible behavior on your part does not constitute an emergency on my part. If you have un protected sex, you know there's a risk of getting pregnant. You calculated the odds and lost, so don't cry "accident" when you lose.

hawk2618

05-22-2012, 07:22 PM

Irresponsible behavior on your part does not constitute an emergency on my part. If you have un protected sex, you know there's a risk of getting pregnant. You calculated the odds and lost, so don't cry "accident" when you lose.

I take it your friend isn't disabled and has no children correct??? If thats the case....
I have a HUGE problem with that.People would rather smudge their earnings just so they're under the gun to get these benefits rather than man up or even woman up for that matter and make money from actually DOING work.I started making a so-called living at 11 yrs old delivering newspapers.Although still at home obviously,it got me in the mindset of how to make money by manual labor.To be honest... I would be absolutely ashamed to be on welfare or even getting foodstamps.As long as there's handouts from the government....the shameless will always accept!
~~Dave C.

It would depend on which one you're referring to as I have three friends with 4 kids who I am referencing and one with one of his own. The friend with one child, is the one I was talking about being on welfare, yet his wife soon to be ex, got a boob job, and they have two nice cars, I know he told me one was almost $500 a month payment. Just went out and bought a 50 some odd inch plasma TV and $300 gaming system, yet doesn't have a bed to sleep in.
Common sense tells me if times are tough you cut back on stuff like that. Housing, clothing, food/water and medical over cable, cell phone, name brand clothes, nice cars, video games, ect. Others common sense tells them to go on welfare I guess and continue living a lifestyle they cannot afford. Forgot to mention he also play poker 2-3 times a week. I really hope not all areas are like this, it gives me hope for one day being done fixing up my house and moving. :) I admit, I'd be ashamed to be on welfare as well, however I do understand things happen, and if you lose your job, have kids and need a crutch for a few months I'm cool with it. Thats what its there for.

AUTaxMan

05-22-2012, 09:44 PM

Well duh...

There's nobody that would claim that the act of sex is an accident.... but you're not going to impregnate a girl every time you have sex.

Thus when it does happen, more than likely it's unplanned.

"an accident" is simply the terminology used for an unplanned pregnancy.

Sorry if it sounds "bad" but that's the way it is.

And HALF of pregnancies are just that.....ACCIDENTS!

Accidents that are unnecessary and 100% avoidable.

JustAlex

05-22-2012, 11:11 PM

Accidents that are unnecessary and 100% avoidable.

Your argument is basically telling people NOT to have sex...

Good luck with that :thumb:

BGT Masters

05-22-2012, 11:27 PM

Your argument is basically telling people NOT to have sex...

Good luck with that :thumb:
:fighting0049:

I've been with the same girl for over 10 years, and we haven't had any "accidents". If you're too stupid to correctly take proper precautions to not have children when you're not ready and need the government to pay to raise your kids for you then perhaps you're right. They should be told not to have sex. :nono:

JustAlex

05-22-2012, 11:36 PM

I've been with the same girl for over 10 years, and we haven't had any "accidents". If you're too stupid to correctly take proper precautions to not have children when you're not ready and need the government to pay to raise your kids for you then perhaps you're right. They should be told not to have sex. :nono:

Dude, what part of "accident" don't you understand?

Condoms break, the pill occasionally fails, sometimes it just happens...

There's no such thing as a 100% sure fire way to avoid it.

And LOL that you need to keep bringing up the government as if it's actually affecting you.

Whatever amount of money these people get, it's no where compared to the wasteful spending we have on the military.....why not complain about that?

So basically some very poor people living in terrible neighborhoods with crappy schools and violence and rely on the government to get by and somehow that makes you angry.....LOL

God, get over it!

BGT Masters

05-22-2012, 11:54 PM

Give me a break you and I both know 99.9% of "accidents" are from unprotected sex from people caught up in the moment. As I mentioned I live in a poor area. I don't live in a terrible neighborhood, nor do we have crappy schools and lots of violence. I can complain about it because I can relate more to it than military spending. I see it first hand on a daily basis. There is a major difference in being poor by being dealt circumstances you cannot overcome and being lazy/irresponsible. I would love to see the numbers on medicare and welfare costs are in the United States. I gave a quick look (could be wrong) I found $900 billion in welfare programs in one year. To me wasted is wasted spending. If I touched a nerve because you or your family is on welfare it wasn't meant to offend you. If it does, take your own advice, and get over it.

JustAlex

05-23-2012, 12:11 AM

I don't live in a terrible neighborhood, nor do we have crappy schools and lots of violence.

I never said YOU, I meant welfare recipients.

They are usually the ones that live in terrible neighborhoods plagued with violence and bad schools.

I would love to see the numbers on medicare and welfare costs are in the United States. I gave a quick look (could be wrong) I found $900 billion in welfare programs in one year.
Yeah, you're way off!

JustAlex: You read what you want to read into what I am saying and not what I actually am saying. Didn't say most people are lifers. And what I claim to see is what I see. I see welfare getting abused by a lot of people on it. If you have enough cash to support your 2 pack a day smoking habit, you shouldn't be on food stamps, if you can afford a $500 a month car payment, you shouldn't be on welfare, there are also other ways to abuse it. I don't need a link to see what I see ALL THE TIME with my own eyes. I never claimed to know anything that happens outside of what I see and know. Why should my town be any different though? The only difference is my town has a low cost of housing/living so people on the system can live a lot more comfortably than other places. By the way your figure of $130+ billion doesn't include food stamps and unemployment how convenient. I guess I just look at abusing the system differently than you do. Most people I know on it have kids and do it "for the kids" yet the kids don't seem to be getting the same benefits of the federal money as the parents are. Maybe I was raised wrong. I was always taught if you want something done you work for it. I am curious how do you know for sure people don't abuse it? Where do you live? Because where I live its quite obvious they do. Again I am not against welfare, I am against the people who abuse it.

I found this interesting from the link you gave me. I had no idea welfare (not including foodstamps) you could make more than minimum wage. Considering the figure of $400+ he gets monthly for food, you're really making out if you're on welfare and if you get food stamps. Again keep in mind you can buy homes in my area, nice ones, in the $35,000-$60,000 range. My g/f had been working the same job for 10 years and she makes less than 7 states hand out in welfare for an hourly wage.

Total amount of money you can make monthly and still receive Welfare $1000
Total Number of U.S. States where Welfare pays more than an $8 per hour job 40
Number of U.S. States where Welfare pays more than a $12 per hour job 7
Number of U.S. States where Welfare pays more than the average salary of a U.S. Teacher 9

BGT Masters

05-23-2012, 12:35 AM

Abstinence is the only form of birth control that is 100% effective in preventing pregnancy.

Okay captain obvious. ;) Unless you're using a screen door for a condom, you're not going to have as many "accidents" as JustAlex claims. Of course if you're religious even that 100% effective claim for abstinence isn't correct, after all there was Jesus. :)

JustAlex

05-23-2012, 12:50 AM

Again I am not against welfare, I am against the people who abuse it.

So am I....

I think I've already mentioned it about 3 times that I'm against the people who abuse it, but I still believe the majority don't.

Just like unemployment, some abuse it while the majority don't.

And I can definitely talk about unemployment since I was on it for MORE than one year.

And guess what....NO, I didn't like getting a "handout", every time I got a paid, I wanted that to be my LAST payment!

The small amount they gave me was a joke and no where near what I actually needed.

I wanted a job very badly.

WHY, would I want to stay on a system where I have no control?

But at the same time, I was thankful for it, I was thankful that at least I was getting a little bit of help during my tough time.

I can't speak for welfare I guess, since I've never gotten that, however, I would like to think that most people would react in a similar fashion to the way I did.

It sucks that where you live people are abusing the system, but it's not like that in the entire country.

Zimbow

05-23-2012, 01:00 AM

Okay captain obvious. ;) Unless you're using a screen door for a condom, you're not going to have as many "accidents" as JustAlex claims. Of course if you're religious even that 100% effective claim for abstinence isn't correct, after all there was Jesus. :)

"Screen Door for a condom"....literally had me in tears. :sign0020:

pspstatus

05-23-2012, 01:01 AM

My county is one of the poorer areas in NY and its full of people who treat having children like pay checks and would rather get government checks than work and earn a living.

Do you live in Sullivan County NY?

BGT Masters

05-23-2012, 01:02 AM

Do you live in Sullivan County NY?

I live in Allegany County, its in Western New York.

pspstatus

05-23-2012, 01:10 AM

I live in Allegany County, its in Western New York.

It sounded like you could have been talking about Sullivan County which I think is the poorest in NY. They sound quite similar. Guess where I live? :tongue0020:

BGT Masters

05-23-2012, 01:19 AM

I hear Erie County is pretty bad too. The sad thing is I look at pictures from the early 1900's when the town was a booming oil town and it just saddens me how its gone down hill. I am sure a lot of that can be said with new york. Though the neat thing I found out is the field I play softball on was once a field where MLB HOFers Al Simmons and John McGraw once played on. Used to be a NY/Penn League field.

tpeichel

05-23-2012, 06:29 AM

JustAlex:

I found this interesting from the link you gave me. I had no idea welfare (not including foodstamps) you could make more than minimum wage. Considering the figure of $400+ he gets monthly for food, you're really making out if you're on welfare and if you get food stamps. Again keep in mind you can buy homes in my area, nice ones, in the $35,000-$60,000 range. My g/f had been working the same job for 10 years and she makes less than 7 states hand out in welfare for an hourly wage.

Total amount of money you can make monthly and still receive Welfare $1000
Total Number of U.S. States where Welfare pays more than an $8 per hour job 40
Number of U.S. States where Welfare pays more than a $12 per hour job 7
Number of U.S. States where Welfare pays more than the average salary of a U.S. Teacher 9

This is the problem right here. What is the incentive to work when you make more by sitting at home, watching TV, and collecting checks from the government?

11chaos

05-23-2012, 06:42 AM

The U.S is the way it is because corporations run the government and the financial sector is allowed to do whatever it pleases with absolutely no consequences.

It's NOT because of idiots like the one in the article...

The U.S will one day become nothing more than "just another country" because it decided to spend more money then EVERY NATION IN THE WORLD on "defense" and policing the world instead of investing in Education, infrastructure, and more production.

The U.S has no one to blame but itself.......many decades from now history books will show the U.S as the perfect example of how badly an unregulated capitalist system with the greatest fortune in the world can screw up so badly in such a short amount of time.

You can always leave, no one is holding your butt to the fire to stay.

shrewsbury

05-23-2012, 08:42 AM

things run in cycles, the economy would be coming back if people weren't trying to "fix" it

What is the incentive to work when you make more by sitting at home, watching TV, and collecting checks from the government?

the incentive would be work ethic, what are all these people going to do when they reach their 60's and 70's?

pghin08

05-23-2012, 08:56 AM

You can always leave, no one is holding your butt to the fire to stay.

Lol. I don't think he's saying that he hates the US, just pointing out what he sees as problems.

mrveggieman

05-23-2012, 09:11 AM

You can always leave, no one is holding your butt to the fire to stay.

Why should anyone have to leave? He or anyone else for that matter has just as much right to stay and voice his opinion and does not have to blindly agree with everything that the gov't puts out there.

tpeichel

05-23-2012, 09:29 AM

things run in cycles, the economy would be coming back if people weren't trying to "fix" it

the incentive would be work ethic, what are all these people going to do when they reach their 60's and 70's?

They probably think that they are just going to collect social security, but unless something really changes, in 30-40 years the program will most likely look very different than it does today.

AUTaxMan

05-23-2012, 09:29 AM

Here's an interesting article I found on entitlements a few months ago:

the issue with that chart is the person making the most money may actually own their own home and get work benefits.

but it is sickening and people think this is right? we will spend so much time worrying about gay marriage but yet our whole country will be destroyed because of entitlements

AUTaxMan

05-23-2012, 10:55 AM

but it is sickening and people think this is right? we will spend so much time worrying about gay marriage but yet our whole country will be destroyed because of entitlements

yep

JustAlex

05-23-2012, 03:19 PM

the issue with that chart is the person making the most money may actually own their own home and get work benefits.

but it is sickening and people think this is right? we will spend so much time worrying about gay marriage but yet our whole country will be destroyed because of entitlements

Please show proof that this country is being "destroyed" because of entitlements.

Baseless statements like that are nothing but talking points and go nowhere.

If this country is "destroyed" financially, "entitlements" will be no where near the cause of the problem.

It's funny how you guys blame the POOR for the U.S problems but of course the RICH Bankers and Wall street who really do have the BLAME for the recession for ruining our economy....they get nothing from you people!

"The bursting of the U.S. housing bubble, which peaked in 2007, caused the values of securities tied to U.S. real estate pricing to plummet, damaging financial institutions globally."

"In economics, austerity refers to a policy of deficit-cutting by lowering spending often via a reduction in the amount of benefits and public services provided."

And Yet, I'm sure all you Conservatives would LOVE to further put the U.S down the drain by cutting all entitlements.

You only have to look at Europe to see what cutting entitlements would do.

tpeichel

05-23-2012, 03:39 PM

Please show proof that this country is being "destroyed" because of entitlements.

Baseless statements like that are nothing but talking points and go nowhere.

If this country is "destroyed" financially, "entitlements" will be no where near the cause of the problem.

It's funny how you guys blame the POOR for the U.S problems but of course the RICH Bankers and Wall street who really do have the BLAME for the recession for ruining our economy....they get nothing from you people!

"The bursting of the U.S. housing bubble, which peaked in 2007, caused the values of securities tied to U.S. real estate pricing to plummet, damaging financial institutions globally."

"In economics, austerity refers to a policy of deficit-cutting by lowering spending often via a reduction in the amount of benefits and public services provided."

And Yet, I'm sure all you Conservatives would LOVE to further put the U.S down the drain by cutting all entitlements.

You only have to look at Europe to see what cutting entitlements would do.

Yes, the banksters were (and continue) to financially rape the citizens, but remember that it was the government that put the rules in place and looked the other way and allowed it to happen. The same Government that has made entitlement promises to it's citizens that it has no hopes of being able to pay out.

We've had this fake growth in the U.S. fueled by false demand from easy credit, policies once again put in place by the Government. Just look at what the CBO said recently:

The nonpartisan agency said in a report late yesterday that the economy would contract at an annual rate of 1.3 percent in the first half of 2013 if lawmakers allow the George W. Bush-era tax cuts to expire and $1.2 trillion in government spending cuts to take effect in January.

Government should only spend what it can collect from citizens or else you get to the point where we are now. We're not stimulating anything, we're just digging a deeper hole.

JustAlex

05-23-2012, 03:44 PM

^Government is in bed with corporations and wall street collectively.

I'm not not saying entitlements is the solution, I'm saying that the biggest problem is the dichotomy that exists with government and corporations.

And taking away entitlements (AUSTERITY) would only make things worse.

Examples (Greece, Spain, Italy, France, etc)

BGT Masters

05-23-2012, 03:44 PM

Yes, the banksters were (and continue) to financially rape the citizens, but remember that it was the government that put the rules in place and looked the other way and allowed it to happen. The same Government that has made entitlement promises to it's citizens that it has no hopes of being able to pay out.

We've had this fake growth in the U.S. fueled by false demand from easy credit, policies once again put in place by the Government. Just look at what the CBO said recently:

The nonpartisan agency said in a report late yesterday that the economy would contract at an annual rate of 1.3 percent in the first half of 2013 if lawmakers allow the George W. Bush-era tax cuts to expire and $1.2 trillion in government spending cuts to take effect in January.

Government should only spend what it can collect from citizens or else you get to the point where we are now. We're not stimulating anything, we're just digging a deeper hole.

Some people enjoy digging holes, but cry and whine for someone else to get them out of them when they;re in too deep, and while someone else is filling the hole back in, the same person who dug the first one is busy digging a new one. Its a vicious cycle.

pghin08

05-23-2012, 03:45 PM

Yes, the banksters were (and continue) to financially rape the citizens, but remember that it was the government that put the rules in place and looked the other way and allowed it to happen. The same Government that has made entitlement promises to it's citizens that it has no hopes of being able to pay out.

We've had this fake growth in the U.S. fueled by false demand from easy credit, policies once again put in place by the Government. Just look at what the CBO said recently:

The nonpartisan agency said in a report late yesterday that the economy would contract at an annual rate of 1.3 percent in the first half of 2013 if lawmakers allow the George W. Bush-era tax cuts to expire and $1.2 trillion in government spending cuts to take effect in January.

Government should only spend what it can collect from citizens or else you get to the point where we are now. We're not stimulating anything, we're just digging a deeper hole.

I think that's a bit overblown. The country was doing just fine in 2002 prior to the Bush tax cuts (we were in a small recession, but climbing steadily out). I'm right in between both parties on this. Republicans want them extended for everyone, Democrats want them extended for everyone but the rich. I have a novel idea. Why don't they just let them expire on EVERYBODY? That's the thing. If we're going to improve our financial situation, everyone has to do their part. The middle class in the US wasn't in dire straits under Clinton's tax plan. Whatever happened to Americans being able to uniformly sacrifice for common cause?

shrewsbury

05-23-2012, 03:54 PM

Please show proof that this country is being "destroyed" because of entitlements.

Baseless statements like that are nothing but talking points and go nowhere.

you are the king of such things, should i just post a link to wikipedia?

baseless? these people are getting tax refunds and never worked all year long, they are getting refunds on the tax dollars they took to start with.

if you don't think people not working is an issue, then you are too far gone to deal with

tpeichel

05-23-2012, 04:01 PM

I think that's a bit overblown. The country was doing just fine in 2002 prior to the Bush tax cuts (we were in a small recession, but climbing steadily out). I'm right in between both parties on this. Republicans want them extended for everyone, Democrats want them extended for everyone but the rich. I have a novel idea. Why don't they just let them expire on EVERYBODY? That's the thing. If we're going to improve our financial situation, everyone has to do their part. The middle class in the US wasn't in dire straits under Clinton's tax plan. Whatever happened to Americans being able to uniformly sacrifice for common cause?

In the Bush era we had the housing bubble that banks and others used as a way to extract wealth from citizens. Before that it was the internet bubble. We have been taking on more and more debt as individuals and as a nation to avoid correcting back to a stable situation where individuals and government can live on current incomes and taxes.

I agree with you on the taxes. I'm fine with resetting the tax rates to the levels of the Clinton period as long as we cut spending back to the same levels as well.

JustAlex

05-23-2012, 04:03 PM

I think that's a bit overblown. The country was doing just fine in 2002 prior to the Bush tax cuts (we were in a small recession, but climbing steadily out). I'm right in between both parties on this. Republicans want them extended for everyone, Democrats want them extended for everyone but the rich. I have a novel idea. Why don't they just let them expire on EVERYBODY? That's the thing. If we're going to improve our financial situation, everyone has to do their part. The middle class in the US wasn't in dire straits under Clinton's tax plan. Whatever happened to Americans being able to uniformly sacrifice for common cause?

100% agreed!

you are the king of such things, should i just post a link to wikipedia?

baseless? these people are getting tax refunds and never worked all year long, they are getting refunds on the tax dollars they took to start with.

if you don't think people not working is an issue, then you are too far gone to deal with

You seem to think that Wikipedia is an opinion web site or something.

Of course you don't like it, it's "liberal" it shows facts and evidence disproving your points...that's why you mock it by saying that it's not a good source.

When in actuality, Wikipedia is a GREAT source filled with citations and references.

LOL bro, NO ONE gets tax refunds for nothing, that's insane.

Maybe they get credits, but they're not getting a refund per se....please make sure to understand what the word "refund" actually means.

Yes, clearly all my points have been about wanting everyone to not work....for the love of YOUR god, please try to understand, I'm NOT for unemployment or "handouts", but I am against the thieves and criminals that started this recession and will one day ruin this country.

And your "party" supports these criminals (Wall street)!

pghin08

05-23-2012, 04:07 PM

In the Bush era we had the housing bubble that banks and others used as a way to extract wealth from citizens. Before that it was the internet bubble. We have been taking on more and more debt as individuals and as a nation to avoid correcting back to a stable situation where individuals and government can live on current incomes and taxes.

I agree with you on the taxes. I'm fine with resetting the tax rates to the levels of the Clinton period as long as we cut spending back to the same levels as well.

In order to keep Medicare in some form (to me, social security is a far easier fix), I would agree with some cuts to Medicare at least.

Wow. In my last two posts in here I talked about cutting benefits and raising taxes. I don't think my campaign would stand much of a chance! :tongue0011:

shrewsbury

05-23-2012, 05:18 PM

no raising taxes, we need to create jobs some way. that is truly the answer. we don't need to cut any programs, just create jobs?

how do you do this? not sure, but raising taxes is not the answer

offering tax cuts to people or companies that create and keep jobs for a few years, is a good start.

AUTaxMan

05-23-2012, 05:26 PM

LOL bro, NO ONE gets tax refunds for nothing, that's insane.

I would recommend you do a little reading on the term "refundable tax credit."

Rybowski

05-23-2012, 05:34 PM

Plain and simple, if you don't pay child support, you go to jail, no questions asked. It's sad that this guy will probably get relief when some other men miss a few payments and they head off to jail.

shrewsbury

05-23-2012, 05:46 PM

the jails are so full these guys won't be in for a minute

they should be forced to work and the money come right from their check

you can work and be on welfare, and not only get your taxes paid back, but you can claim earned income credit and child credit, who are also the base of the amount of welfare you receive, and get a nice tax return check.
there is always a way to cheat the system if you want to and many people do
again if this was used as a spring board to get you off welfare and making on your own, then great, but more often than not, it isn't, they are just stuck there

MadMan1978

05-23-2012, 05:59 PM

And now he wants a break. He should be put in jail for not paying child support.
That will teach him!

40K a year to house/feed/etc...
and 30 more mouths on welfare...

yeah will teach him

MadMan1978

05-23-2012, 06:01 PM

no raising taxes, we need to create jobs some way. that is truly the answer. we don't need to cut any programs, just create jobs?

how do you do this? not sure, but raising taxes is not the answer

offering tax cuts to people or companies that create and keep jobs for a few years, is a good start.
yeah the old trickle down ?

nope wont work

JustAlex

05-23-2012, 11:21 PM

I would recommend you do a little reading on the term "refundable tax credit."

Yes, and I clearly said in my post that they DO get credits, but they can't get money back for earning ZERO income.

That's illogical.

Credits and refunds are similar but different.

AUTaxMan

05-23-2012, 11:46 PM

Yes, and I clearly said in my post that they DO get credits, but they can't get money back for earning ZERO income.

That's illogical.

Credits and refunds are similar but different.

It wasn't clear, since you never actually said anything about income in your post.

Also, it's illogical that anyone can get a "tax credit" in the form of a check from the federal government when they don't pay any income taxes to being with.

mrveggieman

05-24-2012, 08:09 AM

How come none of the major politicians regardless of political party are in favor of the fair tax?

shrewsbury

05-24-2012, 08:26 AM

with 37+million using foodstamps and another 4+ million receiving welfare money, how can there be fair taxes? that's 17%+ of the adult population

i would think getting at least half of these people back to work would be better than raising any tax and would stimulate the economy more than any stimulus could

mrveggieman

05-24-2012, 08:46 AM

with 37+million using foodstamps and another 4+ million receiving welfare money, how can there be fair taxes? that's 17%+ of the adult population

i would think getting at least half of these people back to work would be better than raising any tax and would stimulate the economy more than any stimulus could

No I am talking about the fair tax. www.fairtax.org (http://www.fairtax.org) It is a flat tax on consumption. No more intrusive forms, no more people cheating the system or being forced to pay an unfair share of taxes. You only pay taxes on what you buy. It seems like any politician who actually cared about the voters would be in favor if this but I believe the real reason why the gov't dosen't want this even though it would save the gov't and the tax payers a lot of money is that the current tax system gives the gov't complete access to everyone's financial records.

shrewsbury

05-24-2012, 09:04 AM

great link

how would this work on investments, would they be considered a purchase so you pay the 23% up front and then never pay taxes on it again?

what about a house purchase or sell?

pghin08

05-24-2012, 09:06 AM

No I am talking about the fair tax. www.fairtax.org (http://www.fairtax.org) It is a flat tax on consumption. No more intrusive forms, no more people cheating the system or being forced to pay an unfair share of taxes. You only pay taxes on what you buy. It seems like any politician who actually cared about the voters would be in favor if this but I believe the real reason why the gov't dosen't want this even though it would save the gov't and the tax payers a lot of money is that the current tax system gives the gov't complete access to everyone's financial records.

I think there is a fear of "sticker shock". If everything you buy suddenly costs 20% more, you may stop consuming for a bit, even though you won't be paying other federal taxes. My guess is that the corporations wouldn't want to handle the initial shock. Plus, I'm not sure there is a really fair system, there will be ways to cheat everything.

mrveggieman

05-24-2012, 09:07 AM

great link

how would this work on investments, would they be considered a purchase so you pay the 23% up front and then never pay taxes on it again?

what about a house purchase or sell?

I'm not sure of the logistics of it mrtaxman knows more about it than I do but from what I understand you don't pay taxes on used goods. For example if I bought your house or car none of us would pay any taxes on it because we are dealing in used items that taxes were already paid on.

AUTaxMan

05-24-2012, 09:26 AM

How come none of the major politicians regardless of political party are in favor of the fair tax?

Because it doesn't serve any special interests. Many libs, for political reasons, argue that it is regressive, but I just don't see it, and I have studied it. Any consumption tax can also be seen as a step towards a VAT, but that's a stretch to me too. The real concern is adopting a consumption tax without full guarantees that the income tax will be fully repealed. You definitely don't want both.

AUTaxMan

05-24-2012, 09:27 AM

No I am talking about the fair tax. www.fairtax.org (http://www.fairtax.org) It is a flat tax on consumption. No more intrusive forms, no more people cheating the system or being forced to pay an unfair share of taxes. You only pay taxes on what you buy. It seems like any politician who actually cared about the voters would be in favor if this but I believe the real reason why the gov't dosen't want this even though it would save the gov't and the tax payers a lot of money is that the current tax system gives the gov't complete access to everyone's financial records.

As much as you don't like him, your buddy Herman Cain is actually a fairtax proponent. His 9-9-9 plan was intended to be a compromise between the fairtax and the income tax system.

AUTaxMan

05-24-2012, 09:28 AM

I think there is a fear of "sticker shock". If everything you buy suddenly costs 20% more, you may stop consuming for a bit, even though you won't be paying other federal taxes. My guess is that the corporations wouldn't want to handle the initial shock. Plus, I'm not sure there is a really fair system, there will be ways to cheat everything.

Part of the psychological intent of the fairtax is to create sticker shock. Make people aware of the taxes they are paying. You will encourage savings and make people more cost conscious.

AUTaxMan

05-24-2012, 09:33 AM

I'm not sure of the logistics of it mrtaxman knows more about it than I do but from what I understand you don't pay taxes on used goods. For example if I bought your house or car none of us would pay any taxes on it because we are dealing in used items that taxes were already paid on.

I believe the taxes are only on retail goods. I'm not sure whether or not it has a VAT component. Also, each person gets a "prebate" which is a monthly check that is the equivalent of the tax you would pay on purchases if your income is at or below the poverty line (assuming no savings), effectively building in a minimum bracket that would be exempt from tax.

Star_Cards

05-24-2012, 12:00 PM

How come none of the major politicians regardless of political party are in favor of the fair tax?

I wonder the same thing my man. The tax code needs to be changed but I think they are all too scared of changing the way that they get their funding to spend how they see fit. From what I have read about the fair tax it seems like a very nice way to at least close a lot of loopholes that people have for skirting taxes. It would also make people getting paid under the table and other unreported income get taxes once the person spends it on new goods.

Star_Cards

05-24-2012, 12:03 PM

great link

how would this work on investments, would they be considered a purchase so you pay the 23% up front and then never pay taxes on it again?

what about a house purchase or sell?

it's been awhile since I read the book but I think houses would not be taxed since they are listed under used goods. Only new goods are taxed in the fair tax plan.

I'm not sure about the investments when they are originally bought. your profits would be taxed when you buy a new item with the money you earned from my understanding.

Star_Cards

05-24-2012, 12:06 PM

I think there is a fear of "sticker shock". If everything you buy suddenly costs 20% more, you may stop consuming for a bit, even though you won't be paying other federal taxes. My guess is that the corporations wouldn't want to handle the initial shock. Plus, I'm not sure there is a really fair system, there will be ways to cheat everything.

true, but you will get you full pay check come pay day... minus local taxes of course.

there will be way to cheap, but they will be fewer ways and the system would eliminate most of the IRS. instead of managing every citizen that is working in the US they would just need people to monitor the companies collecting taxes.

bud7562

05-24-2012, 09:22 PM

The U.S is the way it is because corporations run the government and the financial sector is allowed to do whatever it pleases with absolutely no consequences.

It's NOT because of idiots like the one in the article...

The U.S will one day become nothing more than "just another country" because it decided to spend more money then EVERY NATION IN THE WORLD on "defense" and policing the world instead of investing in Education, infrastructure, and more production.

The U.S has no one to blame but itself.......many decades from now history books will show the U.S as the perfect example of how badly an unregulated capitalist system with the greatest fortune in the world can screw up so badly in such a short amount of time. thats very true about this country??

shrewsbury

05-24-2012, 09:36 PM

so do you think people will stop buying new? even things like sports cards?

how would that work with services? say, concrete work or even cable television?

Star_Cards

05-25-2012, 09:03 AM

so do you think people will stop buying new? even things like sports cards?

how would that work with services? say, concrete work or even cable television?

I would. I like that you would be able to limit your taxes paid if you want. I don't buy a lot of stuff, but even now try to buy used when possible. it's a great way to save some cash. That's not to say that I wouldn't put into the system. I think service type stuff is taxed, like travel expenses (gas and airfare) and food purchased at restaurants. It would almost have to be included to work. There's a lot of services that don't classify as goods so they'd probably have to include those to support the system

I think with little stuff people wouldn't stop buying. As for sports cards I'd think that if you bought wax on the secondary, the prices would adjust to include the initial buyer getting paid for the tax it cost or if they get it tax exempt from wholesale they'd be liable to collect the tax and pay it to the government.

shrewsbury

05-25-2012, 10:19 AM

i might be for this. the initial increase on gas and food might be alarming, but for working folks it would work out. what about those on welfare? would there welfare income have to go up? if so, this might make me rethink if i am for this or not

Star_Cards

05-25-2012, 10:29 AM

i might be for this. the initial increase on gas and food might be alarming, but for working folks it would work out. what about those on welfare? would there welfare income have to go up? if so, this might make me rethink if i am for this or not

I don't know if their welfare payments would go up. I don't think so. The sticker shock would be noticed for sure, but like I mentioned before, you would get pretty much ALL of your pay check every two weeks. That's a lot more actual cash in ones account. Plus there is a prebate system to offset the cost of the tax on essential goods like food and such. It's 2,491 for 1 person annually. They got this figure by taking the poverty rate multiplied by the tax rate.

number 19 talks about taxing services and the FAirTax does tax services.

tpeichel

05-27-2012, 08:10 AM

Please show proof that this country is being "destroyed" because of entitlements.

Baseless statements like that are nothing but talking points and go nowhere.

If this country is "destroyed" financially, "entitlements" will be no where near the cause of the problem.

It's funny how you guys blame the POOR for the U.S problems but of course the RICH Bankers and Wall street who really do have the BLAME for the recession for ruining our economy....they get nothing from you people!

"The bursting of the U.S. housing bubble, which peaked in 2007, caused the values of securities tied to U.S. real estate pricing to plummet, damaging financial institutions globally."

"In economics, austerity refers to a policy of deficit-cutting by lowering spending often via a reduction in the amount of benefits and public services provided."

And Yet, I'm sure all you Conservatives would LOVE to further put the U.S down the drain by cutting all entitlements.

You only have to look at Europe to see what cutting entitlements would do.

Europe isn't in trouble because they are cutting entitlements. Europe is in trouble because the governments promised people lavish entitlements without any way to pay them!

You see, when you run up the credit card and you reach the point where creditors don't think you can pay them back, they don't give you any more credit.

It's amazing how many people think you can solve a problem of too much debt with even more debt.

Just look at the last three years where there have been concerted world wide effort to restore the world economy by taking on trillions in additional debt. Yet, Europe is still teetering on the edge of collapse, China is slowing down, and the U.S. is in the position where we must cut spending but we're told if we do then GDP will go negative.

The "ever more debt" solution has not worked.

shrewsbury

05-28-2012, 05:52 PM

tpeichel, nice post!

habsheaven

05-28-2012, 06:18 PM

Up here we are taxed at a level that would make EVERY American throw up but you know what, as a country we are doing pretty good financially compared to the rest of the world.

pghin08

05-29-2012, 10:56 AM

Europe isn't in trouble because they are cutting entitlements. Europe is in trouble because the governments promised people lavish entitlements without any way to pay them!

You see, when you run up the credit card and you reach the point where creditors don't think you can pay them back, they don't give you any more credit.

It's amazing how many people think you can solve a problem of too much debt with even more debt.

Just look at the last three years where there have been concerted world wide effort to restore the world economy by taking on trillions in additional debt. Yet, Europe is still teetering on the edge of collapse, China is slowing down, and the U.S. is in the position where we must cut spending but we're told if we do then GDP will go negative.

The "ever more debt" solution has not worked.

It's actually both. In my job, I've had to talk about the European situation a lot to clients, and this is the best way I can attempt to explain things.

1. You're absolutely right. Europe over-promised on their entitlements, and grossly underfunded them (if that sounds familiar, you're an American).

However, there is a point where adding more debt works, just as long as you start doing it at a slower pace. Austerity measures, as they've been put out, will not work in Europe. Here's why, in the best comparison I can muster:

Imagine you are a morbidly obese person. 200 pounds overweight, and you just live for food. And, unsurprisingly, you have a heart attack. You get rushed to the emergency room, and the doctor says two things to you: "You're having a heart attack and it's because you're morbidly obese." Now to keep with the comparison, the austerity measures that have/are trying to be put in place would basically equate to the doctor telling you: "You're having a heart attack and it's because you're morbidly obese. Now go outside, run 5 miles and start to lose some weight". If that patient listens to the doctor, he's going to die, because everyone knows you can't put that much strain on a heart that's already in trouble. You have to stabilize the patient first.

Economics works much the same way. Throughout history (and this goes far beyond economic history), we've seen that radical change can occur, but it often happens in less radical steps. That's really the tonic that a place like Greece needs. Does a country like Greece need to radically change the way it does business? You bet. I don't think a lot of people would deny that. But that's a change that needs to occur over time, and one that can't happen overnight without positively chaotic implications.

tpeichel

05-29-2012, 12:01 PM

It's actually both. In my job, I've had to talk about the European situation a lot to clients, and this is the best way I can attempt to explain things.

1. You're absolutely right. Europe over-promised on their entitlements, and grossly underfunded them (if that sounds familiar, you're an American).

However, there is a point where adding more debt works, just as long as you start doing it at a slower pace. Austerity measures, as they've been put out, will not work in Europe. Here's why, in the best comparison I can muster:

Imagine you are a morbidly obese person. 200 pounds overweight, and you just live for food. And, unsurprisingly, you have a heart attack. You get rushed to the emergency room, and the doctor says two things to you: "You're having a heart attack and it's because you're morbidly obese." Now to keep with the comparison, the austerity measures that have/are trying to be put in place would basically equate to the doctor telling you: "You're having a heart attack and it's because you're morbidly obese. Now go outside, run 5 miles and start to lose some weight". If that patient listens to the doctor, he's going to die, because everyone knows you can't put that much strain on a heart that's already in trouble. You have to stabilize the patient first.

Economics works much the same way. Throughout history (and this goes far beyond economic history), we've seen that radical change can occur, but it often happens in less radical steps. That's really the tonic that a place like Greece needs. Does a country like Greece need to radically change the way it does business? You bet. I don't think a lot of people would deny that. But that's a change that needs to occur over time, and one that can't happen overnight without positively chaotic implications.

The problem is that the chance for stabilization was in 2007 and before that in 2001. Instead of changing course at those points, the "patient" changed their diet from 2500 calories per day to 3000 calories per day and then 3500 calories per day. (Like gorging themselves would solve their problem of being overweight.)

Now the doctor (Germany) is saying that the patient has done nothing to really alter their lifestyle and unless they make an effort to change, they are going to stop providing the credit to sustain the 3500 calorie diet and Greece will have to make do with a 2000 calorie diet. Sure it will be hard, but a government should only spend what it can tax from its citizens.

pghin08

05-29-2012, 12:12 PM

The problem is that the chance for stabilization was in 2007 and before that in 2001. Instead of changing course at those points, the "patient" changed their diet from 2500 calories per day to 3000 calories per day and then 3500 calories per day. (Like gorging themselves would solve their problem of being overweight.)

Now the doctor (Germany) is saying that the patient has done nothing to really alter their lifestyle and unless they make an effort to change, they are going to stop providing the credit to sustain the 3500 calorie diet and Greece will have to make do with a 2000 calorie diet. Sure it will be hard, but a government should only spend what it can tax from its citizens.

In an ideal world, this should absolutely be the case. But like the patient, there are healthy ways to lose weight, and unhealthy ways. Europe needs to find a healthy way to get the P.I.G.S to lose weight (har har).

tpeichel

05-29-2012, 01:27 PM

In an ideal world, this should absolutely be the case. But like the patient, there are healthy ways to lose weight, and unhealthy ways. Europe needs to find a healthy way to get the P.I.G.S to lose weight (har har).

The problem with debt is that there are only two ways to get rid of it, pay it back with surplus income or default on it.

The stimulus did not create a surplus, it just created more debt. I really don't see how the P.I.G.S are going to generate a surplus anytime soon.

tpeichel

05-30-2012, 11:35 AM

Up here we are taxed at a level that would make EVERY American throw up but you know what, as a country we are doing pretty good financially compared to the rest of the world.

Canada is interesting. They have done very well, but I think you'd agree there is more to the story than high taxes.

In the first Liberal budget in 1994, Finance Minister Paul Martin provided some modest spending restraint. But in his second budget in 1995, he began serious cutting.
In just two years, total noninterest spending fell by 10 percent, which would be like the U.S. Congress chopping $340 billion from this year's noninterest federal spending of $3.4 trillion. When U.S. policymakers talk about "cutting" spending, they usually mean reducing spending growth rates, but the Canadians actually spent less when they reformed their budget in the 1990s.

The Canadian government cut defense, unemployment insurance, transportation, business subsidies, aid to provincial governments, and many other items. After the first two years of cuts, the government held spending growth to about 2 percent for the next three years. With this restraint, federal spending as a share of GDP plunged from 22 percent in 1995 to 17 percent by 2000. The spending share kept falling during the 2000s to reach 15 percent by 2006, which was the lowest level since the 1940s.

The combination of low spending and higher taxes means very little debt, the exact opposite solution attempted by the U.S. and Europe over the same time period. In the end, the Canadian government chose to only spend what it could tax and collect from its citizens, something our politicians would be wise to emulate.

pghin08

05-30-2012, 12:13 PM

Canada is interesting. They have done very well, but I think you'd agree there is more to the story than high taxes.

In the first Liberal budget in 1994, Finance Minister Paul Martin provided some modest spending restraint. But in his second budget in 1995, he began serious cutting.
In just two years, total noninterest spending fell by 10 percent, which would be like the U.S. Congress chopping $340 billion from this year's noninterest federal spending of $3.4 trillion. When U.S. policymakers talk about "cutting" spending, they usually mean reducing spending growth rates, but the Canadians actually spent less when they reformed their budget in the 1990s.

The Canadian government cut defense, unemployment insurance, transportation, business subsidies, aid to provincial governments, and many other items. After the first two years of cuts, the government held spending growth to about 2 percent for the next three years. With this restraint, federal spending as a share of GDP plunged from 22 percent in 1995 to 17 percent by 2000. The spending share kept falling during the 2000s to reach 15 percent by 2006, which was the lowest level since the 1940s.

The combination of low spending and higher taxes means very little debt, the exact opposite solution attempted by the U.S. and Europe over the same time period. In the end, the Canadian government chose to only spend what it could tax and collect from its citizens, something our politicians would be wise to emulate.

Something that would be almost impossible for our politicians to emulate. Democrats (though I don't believe the POTUS feels this way) are hardline on not "throwing granny under the bus" by cutting entitlements, and Republicans are absolutely 100% unwilling to raise taxes or close any loopholes in the current tax code.

habsheaven

05-30-2012, 12:27 PM

Canada is interesting. They have done very well, but I think you'd agree there is more to the story than high taxes.

In the first Liberal budget in 1994, Finance Minister Paul Martin provided some modest spending restraint. But in his second budget in 1995, he began serious cutting.
In just two years, total noninterest spending fell by 10 percent, which would be like the U.S. Congress chopping $340 billion from this year's noninterest federal spending of $3.4 trillion. When U.S. policymakers talk about "cutting" spending, they usually mean reducing spending growth rates, but the Canadians actually spent less when they reformed their budget in the 1990s.

The Canadian government cut defense, unemployment insurance, transportation, business subsidies, aid to provincial governments, and many other items. After the first two years of cuts, the government held spending growth to about 2 percent for the next three years. With this restraint, federal spending as a share of GDP plunged from 22 percent in 1995 to 17 percent by 2000. The spending share kept falling during the 2000s to reach 15 percent by 2006, which was the lowest level since the 1940s.

The combination of low spending and higher taxes means very little debt, the exact opposite solution attempted by the U.S. and Europe over the same time period. In the end, the Canadian government chose to only spend what it could tax and collect from its citizens, something our politicians would be wise to emulate.

Yes, there is more to it than just higher taxes. Spending cuts are also a part of it, but as we all know, Republicans are against taxes and Democrats are against cuts so you are never going to get enough of either to solve the crisis.

mrveggieman

05-30-2012, 12:39 PM

Yes, there is more to it than just higher taxes. Spending cuts are also a part of it, but as we all know, Republicans are against taxes and Democrats are against cuts so you are never going to get enough of either to solve the crisis.

That's where the fair tax comes in but it seems like both parties are against that because it would actually help the common man in the long run.

AUTaxMan

05-30-2012, 01:03 PM

Something that would be almost impossible for our politicians to emulate. Democrats (though I don't believe the POTUS feels this way) are hardline on not "throwing granny under the bus" by cutting entitlements, and Republicans are absolutely 100% unwilling to raise taxes or close any loopholes in the current tax code.

Why do you not feel that the POTUS is in line with the Dems? He is at best silent on the issue and at worst he is complicit with the dems. Publicly, he pays lips service to the need for entitlement reform, but substantively he has done absolutely nothing in terms of reform proposals. As with most things, he just says what he can to appease voters without actually accomplishing anything.

tpeichel

05-30-2012, 01:10 PM

That's where the fair tax comes in but it seems like both parties are against that because it would actually help the common man in the long run.

True and Congress wold also lose the power to provide special favors via tax breaks.

pghin08

05-30-2012, 01:19 PM

Why do you not feel that the POTUS is in line with the Dems? He is at best silent on the issue and at worst he is complicit with the dems. Publicly, he pays lips service to the need for entitlement reform, but substantively he has done absolutely nothing in terms of reform proposals. As with most things, he just says what he can to appease voters without actually accomplishing anything.

Him paying lip service to the problem is more than your typical rank-and-file Dem does :pound:

mrveggieman

05-30-2012, 01:26 PM

he just says what he can to appease voters without actually accomplishing anything.

Congrats mrtaxman you have just described every politician in the history of mankind.

pghin08

05-30-2012, 01:32 PM

Congrats mrtaxman you have just described every politician in the history of mankind.

Lol, very true.

AUTaxMan

05-30-2012, 04:04 PM

Congrats mrtaxman you have just described every politician in the history of mankind.